Re: Status on Action-174 ?

I added some proposed additional terms to the glossary:
http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/glossary.html

Annotation, CItation, Data Consumer, Data Producer, Feedback

Cheers,

Eric S

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Annette,
>
> Great thoughts here, I've provided comments, see what you think :-)
>
> Eric
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> It's good to see some ideas getting put out there for these terms. I do
>> have a couple of concerns with the definitions here. First, I think we need
>> to avoid definitions that use the same term they are defining. The
>> definition of "consumer" here is tautological, relying on the words
>> "consumer" and "consuming".
>>
>> -- Good points, yes we must be vigilant!   We need to make use of the
> glossary big time.
>
>
>> Second, I think the term "citation" suggests something narrower. In
>> academia, if Alice writes a paper and Bob cites it, Bob is saying to the
>> world that he used Alice's work. If Alice cited her own work in the work
>> itself, it would be pointless. "Citation" doesn't cover the case of the
>> originator of the work stating that someone else used it.
>>
>> --  I think the other case for citation is providing a link describing
> how you want others to cite it.
>
> An awful lot of what we've been talking about is already defined in the
>> annotations model [1]. For feedback, the current web annotations draft
>> already covers that pretty well. Take a look at their motivations [2]. We
>> might suggest additional motivations, but there are already "commenting",
>> "editing", and "questioning".
>>
>> -- While the Annotation model does cover it in a very general way thus
> giving rise to the concern that there might be large interpretations of how
> I think of feedback solely relying on Annotations, I am attracted to the
> SIOC feedback model because it was built specifically to represent feedback
> in forums. By selecting a common model for feedback, I argue that an
> explicitly declared vocabulary greatly increases the chances of making
> dataset feedback more discoverable because consumers can correlate and
> cross reference feedback from different dataset forums using a consistent
> query pattern.  The Annotation model is so general that cross referencing
> forums represented in a variety of ways would make discovery of feedback
> more difficult.
>
>
>> I think that what we should be focusing on is usage annotations, possibly
>> just an additional motivation for the annotations model. Usage annotations
>> can be the same for the publisher and the re-user. In both cases, someone
>> is creating an annotation outside the original work (outside the published
>> dataset) that says that particular dataset was reused by someone else. So,
>> if Alice publishes a dataset and Bob uses it in creating a visualization,
>> which Carol views online, Bob needs a way to tell the world that he used
>> Alice's data, so that Carol can see it and so that Alice can be made aware
>> of it. Alice could make the same annotation as Bob in her role as a
>> webizen; she needn't adopt her role as the original publisher to do so.
>> There is no need to distinguish between publisher and consumer. Either way,
>> Carol can see it and Alice is also aware of it.
>>
>> -- I agree that we should also use Usage annotations in the way that you
> described.  I agree about the blur between publisher and consumer in
> situations like these.
>
>
>> -Annette
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Ig Ibert Bittencourt <ig.ibert@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Yaso and Eric,
>> >
>> > Wonderful you've started the glossary. I would suggest some updates in
>> the definition of the following concepts:
>> >       • Data Producer: this entity represents an agent (human or
>> machine) in the role of a data producer responsible for producing data (or
>> even the dataset) in any phase of the data life cycle. It is important to
>> say the production of new data can happen through the consumption/reuse of
>> old data;
>> >       • Data Consumer: this entity represents an agent (human or
>> machine) in the role of a data consumer responsible for consuming data from
>> one or more datasets.
>> >       • Data Publisher: this entity represents an agent (human or
>> machine) in the role of data publisher responsible for publishing one or
>> more datases. It is important to say that this role is different from data
>> producer, although they can be owned by the same agent;
>> >       • Citation: Citations is an action performed by a citing entity
>> to a cited entity, qualified/characterized as direct and explicit, indirect
>> or implicit [1]. In the context of DWBP, it is a formal feedback
>> (bibliographic reference in the form of published material as a book,
>> paper, web page) performed by an agent (in the role of a data consumer or
>> data publisher) to a dataset.
>> > Please, let me know if you agree of not.
>> >
>> > [1] http://purl.org/spar/cito
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ig
>> >
>> > 2015-04-23 12:33 GMT-03:00 <yaso@nic.br>:
>> > Hi Eric!
>> >
>> > I'm glad you asked. I made a very rough draft and uploaded to my fork
>> on github because the doc is still with no styling and proper IDs. I sent
>> it to Phil and the editors to get some feedback, but had no answer till now.
>> >
>> > Basically, I picked the idea of that conversation at the f2f and
>> threshed the details of the Data on the Web Life cycle proposed by
>> Bernadette. The draft is at [1] and you can see it rendered at [2].
>> >
>> > What I am proposing is that we use actions that transforms data in to
>> something else, like a dataset or metadata, as turning points to divide
>> whether someone is a publisher or a consumer. Furthermore, as a data
>> creator can be also someone that collects data from others using software,
>> like facebook or yandex, I propose that we focus on 3 "representations" of
>> data: data (as raw data), dataset (as encoded file or structured dataset)
>> or metadata (whatever is the format).
>> >
>> > Given this way of thinking the cycle of data on the web, data archiving
>> techniques and data preparation or data planning are out of the scope of
>> this WG, thought 303 pages and 404 are in. Data encoded in file formats is
>> out of the scope also, but only if people involved with data mining and
>> enriching wants.
>> >
>> > The idea still have to be polished, but I think it is a good way out
>> for our abstractsss discussions to focus on actions performed to delineate
>> concrete lines of definitions.
>> >
>> > I'm keen for the feedback of the WG.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/yaso/dwbp
>> > [2] http://yaso.is/dwbp/glossary.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Yaso
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting "Eric Stephan" <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > Hi Ig,
>> >
>> > There are quite a bit of definitions floating around, I was wondering if
>> > you needed help on this task.  Please let me know.
>> >
>> > Eric S
>> >
>> >   https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/174
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Ig Ibert Bittencourt
>> > Professor Adjunto III - Instituto de Computação/Universidade Federal de
>> Alagoas (UFAL)
>> > Vice-Coordenador da Comissão Especial de Informática na Educação
>> > Líder do Centro de Excelência em Tecnologias Sociais
>> > Co-fundador da Startup MeuTutor Soluções Educacionais LTDA.
>>
>>
>